Trey Veston
Member
Quite frequently when the discussion about firearm accuracy is brought up, there always seems to be a couple of people that state the opinion that shooting someone 75' from you is not legally justified so practicing at that distance is a waste.
I just saw it stated on another forum in a recent thread...
"in many cases, engaging a target at 25 yards would leave you with 'splainin to do."
"Sure 25 is fun, but I’ll argue it’s not practical for EDC situations as a civilian."
"As has been said, if you shoot someone who is 75' away you may have a very tough time explaining how you felt you were at risk of severe bodily harm or death."
Those are actual quotes by gun owners on a different firearms forum, though I've seen similar statements here.
I think they are ridiculous and without merit.
They, and others with the same line of thinking, think that someone threatening you with a gun or shooting at you 75' away is somehow too far away to be a threat and defending yourself at that distance is somehow not legal or not warranted.
Pretty sure I can hit someone with a rock at 75' away.
I think the argument boils down to whether or not you have a legal justification to self-defense, which usually boils down to would a reasonable person in the same situation feel their life was in danger.
I can make head shots at 75' with a stock Glock 19 in a stressful match, so pretty sure someone pointing a gun at me 75' away is a valid case for self-defense.
Since this is the legal forum, has there been a case in which someone being shot at from a further distance returned fire and it was ruled not a good shoot?
Is there any legal standard that would put 75' as too far to defend yourself?
I just saw it stated on another forum in a recent thread...
"in many cases, engaging a target at 25 yards would leave you with 'splainin to do."
"Sure 25 is fun, but I’ll argue it’s not practical for EDC situations as a civilian."
"As has been said, if you shoot someone who is 75' away you may have a very tough time explaining how you felt you were at risk of severe bodily harm or death."
Those are actual quotes by gun owners on a different firearms forum, though I've seen similar statements here.
I think they are ridiculous and without merit.
They, and others with the same line of thinking, think that someone threatening you with a gun or shooting at you 75' away is somehow too far away to be a threat and defending yourself at that distance is somehow not legal or not warranted.
Pretty sure I can hit someone with a rock at 75' away.
I think the argument boils down to whether or not you have a legal justification to self-defense, which usually boils down to would a reasonable person in the same situation feel their life was in danger.
I can make head shots at 75' with a stock Glock 19 in a stressful match, so pretty sure someone pointing a gun at me 75' away is a valid case for self-defense.
Since this is the legal forum, has there been a case in which someone being shot at from a further distance returned fire and it was ruled not a good shoot?
Is there any legal standard that would put 75' as too far to defend yourself?